pastitche

begin removed ...

I really think that you should have read all of what I said or at least quoted it. I believe also that the Thai police should be in the forefront for control of civilian unrest; I suggest however that this is not the case for reasons that are probably obvious, other than the blatant "i'm not putting myself in there". It is clear that the police commanders have the same motivations as other Thai institutions, personal and organisational advantage.

Maybe I cut a bit too much, my excuses for that. This time I did because the software used in this forum complained about mismatch of quotes/end-quotes, probably just meaning too many quotes.

I personally to try avoid saying 'obviously' or 'it is clear' as in most cases that's not the case to others. I'm sure I don't always succeeding in my good intentions though, I'm only human after all

Cheers rubl, I'm glad to hear that someone else has the same mismatch problems as I often do.

There is a lot of talk on here about wolves in association with the violence being shown by certain dogs. The thing is that there are very very few instances of a Wolf attacking a man. Wolves were hunted to extinction in the UK and many parts of europe due to superstition and incorrect tales of wolf attacks (The child's story of Little Red Riding Hood being a prime example, of our distrust of them). Wolves kill other animals for food and steer well clear of humans. There have been many types of canine that have contributed to the very diverse array of dogs we see today. I would rather have a wolf as a pet than a pitbull. Dogs that are aggressive have been bred that way.

I agree with you entirely although I think the wolf was the major contributor to our canine gene pool; whether today's wolves and their avoidance of us are a true reflection of their ancestors , given persecution on a genocidal scale by humans is an interesting question. Whatever the case is they surely do not have behaviours that the pitbull has. We have created psychotic dogs - time to reverse that

I frequently am amused by your querulous contributions to the forum which completely belie your name but now you are being absurd.

Ozmick said that Chalerm knew the identity of the assailant but had a record of arranging memory losses, this might well have been a cryptic reference. I pointed out that this was a statement from the aggrieved, not Chalerm.

You then brought up a completely unmentioned matter of a policeman's murder and claimed on Ozmick's behalf that he was referring to that killing when I questioned your introduction of the subject.

That is why your remark was irrelevant

Ozmick may well have meant that but he did not directly say anything that could be interpreted to mean that.

begin removed ...

With respect,rubl I believe that you are addressing the situation from the wrong perspective - yes the police in Thailand are a farcical organisation in many ways but is that perhaps an institutionalised situation where they are not meant to do anything other than what they already do, in other words to ignore the most serious criminal activity and play around the peripherary?

... end removed

We're really getting into personal opinions here, mine included. Your view of the Thai Police Force I cannot agree with, which also means the rest is based on what I think is incorrect. To my believe the RTPF is really meant to act as such. The 'thin blue line' as some say.

BTW if your view were correct it would make remarks about 'on April 10th, 2010 why did the government ask the Army to disperse protesters and didn't use the police force as is normal in many countries' even more distorted than they already were at that time.

begin removed ...

With respect,rubl I believe that you are addressing the situation from the wrong perspective - yes the police in Thailand are a farcical organisation in many ways but is that perhaps an institutionalised situation where they are not meant to do anything other than what they already do, in other words to ignore the most serious criminal activity and play around the peripherary?

... end removed

We're really getting into personal opinions here, mine included. Your view of the Thai Police Force I cannot agree with, which also means the rest is based on what I think is incorrect. To my believe the RTPF is really meant to act as such. The 'thin blue line' as some say.

BTW if your view were correct it would make remarks about 'on April 10th, 2010 why did the government ask the Army to disperse protesters and didn't use the police force as is normal in many countries' even more distorted than they already were at that time.

I really think that you should have read all of what I said or at least quoted it. I believe also that the Thai police should be in the forefront for control of civilian unrest; I suggest however that this is not the case for reasons that are probably obvious, other than the blatant "i'm not putting myself in there". It is clear that the police commanders have the same motivations as other Thai institutions, personal and organisational advantage.

Yup and that was the point in me posting this long post .... I have stray dogs and all are rescue dogs I brought from India and when a stranger comes to the gate or acroos the 3 waterway canal that surrounds my property which has no compound wall you can rest assure that they are there barking ans showing agressivity in the sense that " Hey who are you and why are you there...??" And it's great cause it makes me feel very secure.... My dogs are never tied up and well taken care of and of very good behavior once they know that I am comfortable with the new person//// So when I read certain people on this forum and their Hitler type reasonning or baloney statistics it just makes me wonder about humans all together ////... by the way Boxers are Great Dogs... I love them and would have one any time ....

In May 2010, Lennox, a bulldog lab mix, was removed from his home in Belfast, Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom has a ban on pitbull type dogs, and after Lennox displayed protective behaviors when strangers entered his home, the dog warden determined Lennox was a pitbull type dog and would be removed from the home and euthanized. Lennox's family has made legal appeals in an attempt to stay his execution. A DNA test proved that Lennox was actually a bulldog lab mix, not a pitbull, but the test has not been allowed to be submitted to the court as evidence. Professional dog trainers and animal behaviorists Victoria Stillwell and Mic Martin have spoken on behalf of Lennox, noting that his behavior is typical of any dog protecting their home.^[55]

We've always had boxers and they've always 'displayed protective behaviours when strangers entered their home'. It's what dogs do. Our last dog was perfectly happy to allow strangers in our home as long as they sat still and kept quiet.

Hey I have known boxers and lots of other dogs not particularly bred for companionship; eg my dad bred greyhounds, they are are great pets and wonderful with children unless you want to race them when socialisation has to be a bit less important than training and exercise but let a small kid walk one and it sees a cat ...(my grandad was a bit silly with small boys) but they were bred for racing and there's never a live hare on the track so the killer thing is no different from my Shi-tsu and and her favourite stuffed toy - a longarmed monkey.

My only problem is with dogs that have been selectively created for a purpose that is completely against what evolution designed them to be and that is what the pitbull unfotunately represents.

I wish I could say I had an Irish wolfhound or something like that and it''s a real pussy but I don't

In the current context, the word "solicit" could have been better chosen.

Can you be an "unidentified man" when " the deputy prime minister already knew the identify of the assailant." ? I suppose with Chalerm's record of arranging memory losses, it is possible.

No. Akeyuth said that Chalerm knew the identity

Chalerm knew the identity of a particular person that shot a policeman. It didn't stop a lot of other people having a memory lapse.

A cheap if completely irrelevant remark; your fellow Austalian suggested that the deputy prime minister knew the identity of the assailant; I merely corrected that. OK?

In the current context, the word "solicit" could have been better chosen.

Can you be an "unidentified man" when " the deputy prime minister already knew the identify of the assailant." ? I suppose with Chalerm's record of arranging memory losses, it is possible.

No. Akeyuth said that Chalerm knew the identity

Chrisinth

I know your dogs and they are really beautiful, well behaved and morbidly soporific when I have seen them but they like others bred for the same work purpose still look so much like wolves that they could play parts in wolf movies - if you could get them to wake up long enough.

Beautiful animals and obviously well trained; not the same as those we are discussing

I have a simplistic and perhaps naive view of dangerous dogs. I believe that the dog is a descendant of the wolf (primarily - although other canids may well have contributed) and has been selectively bred to produce characteristics that were useful to humans in the environment in which they were both living. The wolf has natural instincts that are only too apparent in herding dogs, making the prey/herd crowd together, occasionally bolt so that the weakest stand out, circling and nipping at ankles and lower legs- the easiest way to bring down a prey animal whose defence is the same as its sexual authority ie horns at the front end.

Wolves do not breed indiscriminately - the alpha male mates with the alpha female who is the only one who achieves oestrus; Kidnap wolf pups or adopt lone wolves and the situation will change. Now they were living in a different society where the hormonal controls that prevent "promiscuity" existing in the pack no longer applied whilst the pack instinct remained. This enabled breeding for changes that we humans desired.

Our first use of dogs I believe was primarily for their hunting skills and these were later adapted to exploit their herding capabilities; I remember watching a small, probably stray dog effectively herding a group of pre-teen schoolchildren on an educational trip. He was better than the teachers at making them keep to the required crocodile formation.

We have taken our canines from the society that they evolved to survive in and infantilised them because that is more expedient and in the case of most dogs nowadays, "cuter". It's nice to have a little hairy bundle of fluff lick your face and yelp with excitement but he's not kissing you, he's displaying infantile behaviour which encouraged adult wolves to regurgitate food from the kill that they had cooperatively made.

You have to remember also that wolf packs do not fight to the death - their fights are normally territorial disputes and usually the pack that backs down is the intruder. The killing instinct does not extend to the same species in most animals

Anyway back to the topic, yes owners can make bad dogs through ignorance or irresponsibility but parents can do the same by bad parenting. However, first we are not going to regulate parenthood and secondly we have not selectively bred humans to be aggressive or to fight.

On the other hand, we have created Frankenstein dogs, animals who have been bred to behave against their own nature, basically we have created dogs that are potentially in human terms, psychopaths. We bred it into them largely within the last couple of millenia for attack dogs and a lesser time for fighting dogs; we can take those behaviours out by the same means and, given the advances in genetics much more rapidly than their creation took

Good post. They say that all dogs now are fully domesticated and the wolf gene has disappeared. In fact, the Bangkaew, which originated in the Phitsanulok provence is believed to be the closest related dog nowadays to the wolf. The story is that a domesticated dog bred with a wolf (some stories say jackal) and the litter was raised by the monks. You talk about dangerous breeds; check these out. Very loyal and territorial, Thai airforce (not sure about the other services) use them as attack dogs.

But, as you rightly state Pastitche, we have created frankenstein dogs, which have been further damaged through inbreeding by greedy breeders. However, the owner is responsible (or should be) for the animals he/she has.

Thanks Chris for the info about the Bangkaew which my wife told me about - the models of them on the way into the park where I live look really cute.

Even though the below article is a few years old, the danger signs remain the same. Please note that this includes all dog types, not just the known danger animals such as Pit bulls, Rockies, Dobs, etc. The bottom line sums it up nicely. It may be slightly off-topic for this thread as this involves the unfortunate death of an individual, but it is a good heads up to people who aren't used to dogs and something to remember.

Here are some danger-signs that warn of a dog attack. Knowing them can keep you and your children safe.

1. A dog in its own yard, and no master present. In 2008, 78% of the human fatalities were by dogs in their own yard.
   
2. The pack mentality. Three dogs are worse than 2, 4 are worse than 3, etc. Docile dogs often become uncharacteristically violent and vicious when they are in a pack. In 2008, 39% of the fatalities involved multiple dogs.
   
3. Chained or tethered. Dogs that are tied up are dangerous. In 2008, 9% of the fatalities involved chained dogs.
   
4. Male. Male dogs are several times more dangerous than female dogs. Unneutered male dogs are the worst.
   
5. Newness. A new dog in the house is dangerous for the first 60 days, and a person who is new to a household where a dog resides is in danger of attack for the first 60 days. In 2007 and 2008, 20% of fatal dog attacks involved a new person or dog sharing a household for a period of two months or less.
   

The presence of any one factor indicates danger. Two or more of these danger-signs should be avoided at all costs.

Very good post, Chrisinth. I have been bitten by countless dogs, but only been attacked by one... a small male pitbull terrier. I have the scars on various parts of my body to show for it. I had to kill that dog with my bare hands and threatened to do the same to the owner who tried to stop me.

I was a paper boy as a youth and a mail carrier over Christmas holidays. That is when I got most of my serious bites. I was on the dogs territory and they were doing what many dogs do while guarding their territory... bite intruders. But, an attack is another thing entirely and only animals bred for fighting and killing do that.

I was raised with dogs and owned a few of them myself, and I know all the breeds and their tendencies. I love dogs and I am not affraid of any single dog, but a pack of dogs is another story entirely. We mostly had hunting dogs and all were friendly to everyone. However, there can be aggressive males in any species. Most will just give a single bite, and very often from behind. You can't stop a retriever breed from going in the water and you can't stop a hunter breed from hunting birds. Likewise you will have a hard time preventing a guarding species from doing what they were bred to do. Pittbulls were bred for one single purpose... fighting to the death. Any that DIDN'T have aggessive tendencies were destroyed.

Why in a modern world would anyone with a sane mind want to own a killing machine, no matter HOW gentle it might appear as a puppy? There a hundreds of breeds that would make suitable pets.

I love dogs, the only one I had as a child had to be rehomed because of my then allergy to dog hair That passed as I grew older, so was not a chronic problem. I have a dog now that I refer to as a ladies' accessory because she is a small Shi Tsu. But she is a dog and not a toy or dolly or plaything; she exhibits canine behaviour all the time. She was not my choice of breed but that is a story for another and less serious thread

I completely agree that owners are the main reason that dogs will behave in what to us humans is an anti-social way but most of the time they are merely acting instinctively in the way that evolution has programmed them. They are territorial and because of domestication think of humans as part of the pack or as outsiders; they are not able to rationalise that humans are a different species which does not recognise the message that the dog is sending out. So if you act aginst their instincts you might get bitten.

However you are unlikely to be mauled to death by the average family pet.

Dogs like pitbulls have no place in a society that does not regard as a sport, selectively bred animals fighting to the death.

Player Queen:

Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,

If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!

Player King:

'Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,

My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile

The tedious day with sleep.

Player Queen:

Sleep rock thy brain,

And never come mischance between us twain!

Hamlet:

Madam, how like you this play?

Queen:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

Almost always misquoted as "Methinks the lady doth protest too much," Queen Gertrude's line is both drier than the misquotation (thanks to the delayed "methinks") and much more ironic. Prince Hamlet's question is intended to smoke out his mother, to whom, as he intended, this Player Queen bears some striking resemblances [see THE PLAY'S THE THING].

The queen in the play, like Gertrude, seems too deeply attached to her first husband to ever even consider remarrying; Gertrude, however, after the death of Hamlet's father, has remarried. We don't know whether Gertrude ever made the same sorts of promises to Hamlet's father that the Player Queen makes to the Player King (who will soon be murdered)—but the irony of her response should be clear.

By "protest," Gertrude doesn't mean "object" or "deny"—these meanings postdate Hamlet.

The principal meaning of "protest" in Shakespeare's day was "vow" or "declare solemnly," a meaning preserved in our use of "protestation."

When we smugly declare that "the lady doth protest too much,"

we almost always mean that the lady objects so much as to lose credibility.

Gertrude says that Player Queen affirms so much as to lose credibility.

Her vows are too elaborate, too artful, too insistent.

More cynically, the queen may also imply that such vows are silly in the first place, and thus may indirectly defend her own remarriage.

Well I must say that this is infinitely superior to your usual attempts at blank verse. Interpretation and relevance, however are perhaps questionable

Player Queen:

Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,

If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!

Player King:

'Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,

My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile

The tedious day with sleep.

Player Queen:

Sleep rock thy brain,

And never come mischance between us twain!

Hamlet:

Madam, how like you this play?

Queen:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

Almost always misquoted as "Methinks the lady doth protest too much," Queen Gertrude's line is both drier than the misquotation (thanks to the delayed "methinks") and much more ironic. Prince Hamlet's question is intended to smoke out his mother, to whom, as he intended, this Player Queen bears some striking resemblances [see THE PLAY'S THE THING].

The queen in the play, like Gertrude, seems too deeply attached to her first husband to ever even consider remarrying; Gertrude, however, after the death of Hamlet's father, has remarried. We don't know whether Gertrude ever made the same sorts of promises to Hamlet's father that the Player Queen makes to the Player King (who will soon be murdered)—but the irony of her response should be clear.

By "protest," Gertrude doesn't mean "object" or "deny"—these meanings postdate Hamlet.

The principal meaning of "protest" in Shakespeare's day was "vow" or "declare solemnly," a meaning preserved in our use of "protestation."

When we smugly declare that "the lady doth protest too much,"

we almost always mean that the lady objects so much as to lose credibility.

Gertrude says that Player Queen affirms so much as to lose credibility.

Her vows are too elaborate, too artful, too insistent.

More cynically, the queen may also imply that such vows are silly in the first place, and thus may indirectly defend her own remarriage.

Well I must say that this is infinitely superior to your usual attempts at blank verse

...

Don't let JT lead you into error, ther is no such word as ministress except perhaps mini-stress which I suspect is as much she feels about this non-story

Tis true. I made up the word. Thai Prime Ministress-gate, anyone?

No - maybe PMS-gate that would perhaps fit better with your ....... fill in your own choice of word, JT

Prime Mistress gate.

I was thinking, given JT's avowed preference, that he might have less experience of the more common pre-menstrual syndrome that has been far more commented upon by men in Western society but whatever rings your bell

[

He might want to design a kilt, for himself, with a metal shield in front.

A borderer who's a kiltmaker? <deleted>! Half of the time they were English - the kilt belongs up amongst the highlanders (and Western Isles in case of pedantic readers); it's Celtic not the wear of Northumbrians nor even the Brythonic and Pictish tribes who lived there before the Romans.

But it's great for jokes - I have two kilts here in Thailand, anyone want a laugh on a night out?

If there was ever going to be anything sensible written in this thread it was surely in the early stages, now it's degenerated into a competition of who can make the most stupid remark - exactly why all the comments regarding suicide and the general slurs against Thai's are allowed escapes me but I suppose the topic does improve readership, sad!

You win.

Posters are keeping it open as they find it funny, thinking it highly unlikely that she will commit suicide.

A (foreign) ex-wife that is not allowed into the country in which her husband resides to pursue a divorce claim for more than she would get 'at home', is an object of ridicule.

If she follows through with her threat, I'm sure we will all feel sorry that she was so desperate for the 'extra' money that she was prepared to die.

She says she has 100,000 lbs, or 4,863,877.33 baht, so that is a ridiculous argument.

Does she. that's a huge amount - much more than 4 million baht would weigh .... oh maybe you meant pounds sterling

...

Don't let JT lead you into error, ther is no such word as ministress except perhaps mini-stress which I suspect is as much she feels about this non-story

Tis true. I made up the word. Thai Prime Ministress-gate, anyone?

No - maybe PMS-gate that would perhaps fit better with your ....... fill in your own choice of word, JT

Democrat Chavanond said Ms Yingluck went to the hotel during office hours, cancelled her meeting at the House immediately and told reporters not to follow her.

The premier arrived at the hotel on Ratchadamri Road at about 2pm on Wednesday and left at about 3.30pm, according to Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung.

She was seen going upstairs by businessman Ekkayuth Anchanbutr, who said on his Facebook account that he could name individuals he saw with her, which could unnerve a lot of people."

It been well documented that Yingluck has a flawed character and doesnt possess the skils required to be an effective PM. Maybe this episode indicates either how flawed her [sic]character is or that Yingluck has the skills for a spirited personal negotiation, as suggested by Ekkayuth. Buy I must becarefull of "sexist abuse" [sic]

No but you should perhaps be more careful about the unsubstantiated quotes you make - of the three, one is from a Democrat and another is from the aggrieved Ekayuth who still has not revealed the individuals he claimed he could/would reveal and unnerve a lot of people; that is hardly impartial information.

Your other comments of a well documented flawed character and lack of skills might also benefit from a touch of objective substantiation.

But what the hell - this is ThaiVisa, never keep postulation out of a good story; Rupert Murdoch morality rules the world

thugocracy

noun. Rule of a country or state by a group of thugs.

In which academically recognised dictionary of English does this appear?

Pitbulls are nasty. They have a hair trigger and can go off at any time, and once they do, there is not a lot you can do about it.

They should require a license to own and should always be behind high fences and never allowed to roam or off leash...ever.

As cute as they are as a puppy, and I saw dozens at Chat u Chuk last month for sale, like guns, they should not be available to just anyone. Until the day the dog snaps, people really don't know they have a ticking time bomb, and then it's too late.

I own a pitbull. There are certainly not for everyone. They are just too powerful, aggressive and unpredictable for your average person to handle and very few will give it the proper training.

I support a dangerous dog law that owners are 100% responsible for their dogs - if a dogs kills someone, it should be considered manslaughter.

If they are as dangerous as and unpredictable as you say, why do you have one? I am not trying to score any points here but I would genuinely like to hear

an owner's reason for having a dog that should always be behind high fences and never be allowed to roam or be off-leash

I've heard it was a doctor, married with two kids.

It's an open season now - she can go anywhere she wants as a free woman and interested public is free to speculate whether she's having an affair, stealing other women's husbands and what not.

Ekayuth was in the wrong place at a wrong time but now he has her in his pocket given that he is the only source who can tell the story.

Again, as a free woman Yingluck doesn't belong to her common law husband and, contrary to some common misconceptions, her morality is not an issue here as long as she has a sweet smile and Thaksin's backing.

They love their Prime Ministresses that way.

And I heard it was you and you smacked Ekayuth on the way out but his guys kicked your ass - same provenance as your story.

Don't let JT lead you into error, ther is no such word as ministress except perhaps mini-stress which I suspect is as much she feels about this non-story

I have a simplistic and perhaps naive view of dangerous dogs. I believe that the dog is a descendant of the wolf (primarily - although other canids may well have contributed) and has been selectively bred to produce characteristics that were useful to humans in the environment in which they were both living. The wolf has natural instincts that are only too apparent in herding dogs, making the prey/herd crowd together, occasionally bolt so that the weakest stand out, circling and nipping at ankles and lower legs- the easiest way to bring down a prey animal whose defence is the same as its sexual authority ie horns at the front end.

Wolves do not breed indiscriminately - the alpha male mates with the alpha female who is the only one who achieves oestrus; Kidnap wolf pups or adopt lone wolves and the situation will change. Now they were living in a different society where the hormonal controls that prevent "promiscuity" existing in the pack no longer applied whilst the pack instinct remained. This enabled breeding for changes that we humans desired.

Our first use of dogs I believe was primarily for their hunting skills and these were later adapted to exploit their herding capabilities; I remember watching a small, probably stray dog effectively herding a group of pre-teen schoolchildren on an educational trip. He was better than the teachers at making them keep to the required crocodile formation.

We have taken our canines from the society that they evolved to survive in and infantilised them because that is more expedient and in the case of most dogs nowadays, "cuter". It's nice to have a little hairy bundle of fluff lick your face and yelp with excitement but he's not kissing you, he's displaying infantile behaviour which encouraged adult wolves to regurgitate food from the kill that they had cooperatively made.

You have to remember also that wolf packs do not fight to the death - their fights are normally territorial disputes and usually the pack that backs down is the intruder. The killing instinct does not extend to the same species in most animals

Anyway back to the topic, yes owners can make bad dogs through ignorance or irresponsibility but parents can do the same by bad parenting. However, first we are not going to regulate parenthood and secondly we have not selectively bred humans to be aggressive or to fight.

On the other hand, we have created Frankenstein dogs, animals who have been bred to behave against their own nature, basically we have created dogs that are potentially in human terms, psychopaths. We bred it into them largely within the last couple of millenia for attack dogs and a lesser time for fighting dogs; we can take those behaviours out by the same means and, given the advances in genetics much more rapidly than their creation took

IMO one of the things that bothers TVF posters so much about RA is his ability to take morsels of truth and place them in the limelight to support his positions.

The only thing I appreciate is that it is perfectly transparent who he is supporting. Comparable to Sondi and ASTV in that sense. Thaksin was not a friend of democracy, but that doesn't justify the actions of the military nor the actions of the Democratic party in their efforts to undermine the democratic process and gain power.

Unlike many posters, I think Thaksin is only part of the problem, not the entire problem himself.

Amazingly for the 1st time I am going to agree with most of what you are saying.

However I will disagree with the last sentence in that I think most of the posters on here against Thaksin do not see him as the entire problem.

I see him right now as the one who has figured out that he has the cash so he can buy or intimidate into a position above the law with the base of a brought electorate vote. He is the current problem. If the best were to happen to him similiar to Sae Daeung then the long term problem would not go away. It would however allow the country to move on in the short term.

The long term problem is if democracy is to have the chance to establish then the one thing that has to be there is "the law". Until such time as the law is applied and enforced "equally to all" by a competent judiciary and police force then sadly Thaialnd is not going to advance and governance will be at the mercy of the next Thaksin and the Army. I support fully the Army but that is as a choice between ther lesser of the two evils, which over rides what most would like to see in a full democracy.

I agree that Thaksin is not the whole problem. But I do have reservations. To my way of thinking Thailand will have no progress towards a solution as long as Thaksin is still drawing air.

He is not all the problem but he has to be dealt with before the rest of the problems can be dealt with. Only then can Thailand turn to the problems of unity, education,corruption, decent health care for the needy and all the other things that will arise.

I agree with many of the posters that Thailand is sorely lacking in these things but that is only by comparing them to the western standards. As countries in the whole world go they are doing a lot better than many of them. It is ironic that the removal of one man will open the gates to progress. It will take time but it will happen.

For those who are for ever complying that Thailand is not like back home you might want to remember it has moved that way in a large way. Sadly they are starting to lose the family unity that they had. I really don't think that is a desirable thing.

So what would be your solution to your perception that Thailand will have no progress "as long as Thaksin is still drawing air"?

What did the Prime Ministress know about being in a hotel and when did she know it?

Is it me that's dim or does this make no sense? Do explain for the local simpleton

...

"I am a woman, and I insist I did not do anything wrong."

...

More proof she's an anti-feminist. Playing the lady card. Pathetic really.

An interesting observation from you of all people, being such a defender of choice in personal sexual behaviour.

Do you really believe that her words were as quoted/translated and contextually exactly as claimed? I wonder what card would you play in similar circumstances?

There is nothing in this that suggests Yingluck met anyone or spent hours in a hotel bedroom with a man other than the statement of a man who is apparently implacably opposed to her brother and whose bodyguards could not protect him from an assault whilst he was having a two-hour coffee break in a hotel where by the merest chance the PM happened to arrive .... after he was ensconced there.

Come on it's a heap of shit. If he'd been assaulted, he would have lodged a complaint

You writhe and twist to explain this away - "He alleges that he was assaulted by one security guard (not plural and not a security detail). There was no evidence in the pictures I saw that he had been assaulted by a professional..."

Just how hard would it be for a person recognised as a police officer to walk up and punch the victim, and what evidence would convince you that it was done by a "professional"? And the rest of the security detail should abandon their charge and give him a right work-over, that would be more convincing and professional..

Now it's the victim's fault because he happened to be in the coffee lounge - is that an inappropriate place to have a meeting? Get a room, pal?

And it must be a false allegation because he hasn't lodged a police complaint that a police officer assaulted him. How many members of this forum have reported to the nearest station that a police officer has coerced a bribe? Perhaps they also understand the word "futility."

I am not writhing or twisting to explain anything away, I merely doubt that the victim has described the incident in a completely truthful manner. There are any numbers of scenarios that could be speculated about the events but none of us was present so we do not know what did happen. However there are coincidences that make me sceptical. The man involved is an avowed opponent of the Shinawatra clan and has published statements you have seen quoted here which are meant to suggest that Yingluck would be better employed as a prostitute than a Prime Minister. That makes me think that he cannot be viewed as an ingenue in the torrid world that is Thai politics, he knows what he is doing. He is a wealthy and powerful Thai, not a farang tourist or expat so would not be treated with the same indifference were he to report the incident.

I too believe that he is not taking police action because it would be futile but for different reasons from yours; I believe that he knows that nothing significant occurred to justify laying an assault charge and he can make more trouble by using the media to publicise his story laced with innuendo without facing the embarrassment of being laughed out of court.

Of course I might be totally wrong; we might hear a factual account of what took place sometime but I won't be holding my breath